linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: kpc2000: remove unnecessary comments in kp2000_pcie

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190612074600.GA17100@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:46:00 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: kpc2000: remove unnecessary comments in
 kp2000_pcie_probe

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:39:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Simon Sandström wrote:
> > @@ -349,9 +340,7 @@ static int kp2000_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> >  		goto err_remove_ida;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Step 4: Setup the Register BAR
> > -	 */
> > +	// Setup the Register BAR
> 
> Greg, are we moving the C++ style comments?  Linus is fine with them.  I
> don't like them but whatever...

I don't like them either.  I'm only "ok" with them on the very first
line of the file.  Linus chose // to make it "stand out" from the normal
flow of the file, which is fine for an SPDX line.  So putting these in
here like this is not ok to me.

thanks,

greg k-h